Trump the nominee

So he has done it. Or at least got half way there.

Mr Trump has all but won the Republican nomination to run for the Whitehouse.

Much as I, personally, like Bernie Sanders, Mrs Clinton will be his opponent, barring some sort of miracle or natural disaster.

Whatever the American establishment may think, a country can survive being lead by an individual that it is difficult to take seriously. Just think about Italy and Silvio Berlusconi.

That doesn't mean he will be President.

I don't much like Mrs Clinton, but I would think him a much worse choice than her.

The conventional wisdom is he cannot win. He will be slaughtered in a general election.

After all, Mr Trump has insulted not only Muslims and immigrants, but also Mexicans and women.

Women alone make up more than half of the electorate. His tally must be at least 60% of voters insulted.

Surely he can't win?

Thing is, only people abnormally interested in politics have really been paying attention.

Mr Trump has strong appeal amongst poorer white people. People who would have had solid union jobs in past generations. There is no doubt in my mind he will be able to portray himself very differently indeed when it comes to the general election.

The transformation will be shameless. Mrs Clinton may find it difficult to cope with that. To take him seriously.

And Mrs Clinton herself is rather unpopular. Very unpopular with republicans. Could be she is just the person to motivate republicans to get up and out and vote for Trump.

I am aware that people who know far more about US politics than I do give him no chance. But those people also gave him no chance at the primaries.

Mr Trump will be able to portray himself as the insurgent against the Clinton establishment. And however Mrs Clinton chooses to play it, there will be a whole raft of people saying vote Clinton just because she is a woman. That could backfire. It wouldn't sound very good coming from a man.

Janet Yellen was given the Federal Reserve job when an outsider should really have been picked. Christine Lagarde became head of the IMF when Europe should really have backed away.

Were I inclined to conspiracy theories I would believe that elites hand leadership roles to women as a last resort to stop power dissipating further.

Mrs Clinton comes across as calculated. Devoid of principles, I have heard her Democratic party described as a brokerage for interest groups. That's an unkind way of putting their point that demography is on their side.

If I were to pick a candidate to neutralise Mr Trump's appeal, Bernie Sanders would be a much better bet than Hilary Clinton.

For years, we on the left have been told we must accept establishment candidates, because a true leftist has no chance of winning. How ironic it would be were Mrs Clinton to lose precisely because she was so establishment.

And what a shame if the first serious female candidate were to lose because she was too establishment.

The Donald. And Women

Reports of Mr Trump's political demise have been much exaggerated. Particularly at the beginning of his campaign, comments directed at various women were pretty unsavoury. But nothing seemed to really have much of an impact.

He took a leaf from Karl Rove's book and disrespected a genuine US war hero. John McCain.

He picked a fight with the pope.

He insulted a Fox News Anchor (Megyn Kelly), and boycotted their debate.

If a candidate can insult war heroes. Disrespect religious leaders and walk all over Fox News, how can they also convincingly lead the race for the Republican nomination?

Whatever the reasons for Trump's success, I would suggest that anyone who who is familiar with traditional blue collar/working class communities anywhere in the Western World is somewhat less surprised than the political/journalistic elite.

Not surprised at all, in fact.

This is a demographic whose interests the traditional parties of the left have triangulated to extinction. Protest and identity are what remain.

Strange how triangulation disenfranchises people at the bottom more than those at the top.

Yet Mr Trump now seems to have pushed a little too far. After having a deeply ambiguous stance on abortion, from being very pro-choice to staunchly against, he managed to touch something of a raw nerve. Mr Trump advocated criminal sanction against women who had an abortion.

At last Mr Trump has shown that while his bombast and populism can demonstrate real appeal, he doesn't really understand the people he purports to represent. He is just another member of the elite. He thought that the touchstone right wing issue of abortion was a stick with which to beat women. A mistake he holds in common with many feminists.

While women, particularly poor women, might be amongst those who most suffer when access to abortion is restricted, that is not the objective of the policy.

There are also many women, often married women, who are coerced into abortion. Mr Trumps voter's are only too happy to blame the doctors who perform abortions. They are also a little too ready to deny the women that seek abortion agency. They are viewed as victims, not perpetrators.

People who are liable to vote for Mr Trump don't like abortion because they don't like the people who do like it. Because they associate it with the breakdown of family and community that has afflicted them. And because they have a cultural affinity, they share an identity with, those who oppose abortion on moral/religious grounds.

Mr Trump revealed something of himself, he really is a misogynist. His polling numbers amongst women who identify as Republicans are extremely poor.

His traditional male, working class/blue collar voters may not like feminism, but they absolutely hate wife beaters. Or men who abuse women in any way at all.

Chivalry is a form of sexism. I would contend misogyny is a very different beast. Many people who describe themselves as feminists may disagree. Mr Trump also cannot see the difference.